|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights |
|
Anti-Chief Protestors Disrupt U Of I Board Of Trustees Meeting |
Current rating: 0 |
by Meridith Kruse
Email: idf (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified!) |
14 Nov 2002
|
|
For more than a decade the U of I Board of Trustees (BOT)has refused to even propose- much less vote upon- a resolution to eliminate "Chief Illiniwek". During the public comment session of their meeting this morning, however, the BOT was forced to confront the issue when members of the Progressive Resource/Action Cooperative demanded the BOT sign a resolution to eliminate the "Chief" and then disrupted the meeting by chanting "No Excuse, No Delay, Ban the Chief Today!" after the BOT refused to take action. |
Anti-Chief Protestors Disrupt U of I Board of Trustees Meeting
For more than a decade the U of I Board of Trustees (BOT) has refused to even propose- much less vote upon- a resolution to eliminate "Chief Illiniwek". During the public comment session of their meeting this morning, however, the BOT was forced to confront the issue when members of the Progressive Resource/Action Cooperative (PRC) demanded the BOT sign a resolution to eliminate the "Chief" and then disrupted the meeting by chanting "No Excuse, No Delay, Ban the Chief Today!" after the BOT refused to take action.
Shortly after the 8:00 AM meeting began one of the trustees asked the chair if he would remove the proposal for domestic partner benefits from the agenda. Student trustee Keely Stewart objected and some audience members cheered and clapped. President Shea then took a roll call vote and all but two trustees, Stewart and someone else, voted to remove the item from the agenda.
Next was the public comment session. Two people spoke in favor of Domestic Partnership Benefits for both same-sex and opposite sex partners and cheers and claps from some followed their speeches as well. Then two pro-Chief speakers addressed the Board. One, Mr. League, was a former "Chief Illiniwek" and the other said he lived near a reservation and had many Native American friends whom supported the "Chief".
Next anti-chief activists Jen Tayabji and Brook Anderson spoke from the PRC. Jen began by confronting the BOT on its acts to deter public participation at their meeting, specifically questioning the location change from the larger Illini Rooms A & B to Pine Lounge only days before. Her comments were met with cheers from inside and outside the room as those who were denied entrance because of insufficient seating vocalized their support.
Jen also expressed support for Domestic Partnership Benefits and made the link between the institutional discrimination embodied in both the racist "Chief" mascot and lack of same sex benefits. Jen then presented the BOT with the first part of the community resolution to eliminate "Chief Illiniwek".
Immediately following Jen's speech Trustee Susan Gravenhorst reminded speakers that they are restricted to addressing only one topic.
Brooke Anderson, the second anti-chief speaker, began her comments with an affront to Gravenhorst, explaining that she would continue to address several topics since institutional racism, sexism, and homophobia are connected and the struggle to overcome these oppressions unites people across movements.
Brooke read the demands of the resolution to eliminate the "Chief" and concluded her talk by demanding the BOT sign the resolution today. She said she would use the rest of her 5-minute speaking time to wait for their answer. The Chair said that the Board would not address this matter. Brooke waited and asked the Board members again if they would adopt the resolution.
When it was apparent that she would get no answer, about twenty members of the audience stood up in their chairs and held up anti-Chief signs and began chanting. There were seven or eight police officers in the room. As the PRC members and other supporters continued to chant, the Board members got up and walked around. The meeting could not continue and went into Executive Session. The chanting went on for another 10 until the Police announced that protestors had 1 minute before they would be arrested. PRC representatives announced that their rally would continue outside the Union. Protestors then left the meeting and joined with about thirty other anti-chief supporters outside the union.
The movement to eliminate "Chief Illiniwek" continues. For more information contact the PRC at 352-8721. You can also attend their meetings at 7:30pm Wednesday nights at the Illinois Disciples Foundation, corner of Springfield and Wright. |
Related stories on this site:
UIUC Board Of Trustees Meeting Disrupted!
|
Comments
|
Gazette Chief Re-endorses "Chief" |
by GR
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Nov 2002
|
|
News-Gazette general manager John Foreman today reiterated his support for Illiniwek and--as a good editor and manager of an "independent" newspaper should--encouraged the masses to support him in educating the new trustees about the goodness of the racist mascot. He also played the victim card, claiming (again) that the "Chief"-loving masses have been victimized by a small band of politically correct evildoers. |
|
The Topic Should End |
by GP
MdWestDude (nospam) aol.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Nov 2002
|
I happen to think the entire issue is a waste of space and human energy. I've never viewed the "Chief" as any source of insult, but a symbol of spirit. If said spirit is reflected upon to the war between the native Americans and the intrusive newcomers (of every race), it was a respected spirit, though the native Americans lost the war and we now have America as we know it. It's history.
The success of America will always be dependent upon the uniting of it's peoples as one. I view such actions of native Americans (even the need to refer to them as such)as a definitive actions of separatism, and it's something I abhore.
I believe people's dispostions often lead them to find insult where there is none offered. These are the self-imposed "victims" for whom way too much time and energies are consumed in this nation's courts and public institutions. Such issues are psychological in nature, and not issues for our courts of law, nor concrete enough to allow for the creation of such public upheaval.
In a nutshell, get over it. |
|
What Are You Afraid Of? |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Nov 2002
|
Gosh, G[O?]P, what are you afraid of? It sounds like you're concerned about the fact that genocide has no statute of limitations.
Injustice breeds resistance. It won't go away just because you claim the victor's spoils. I'm sure Custer felt the same way, but what good did it do him? |
|
No "ML", I'm Not Scared.. Are You Surprised? |
by GP
MdWestDude (nospam) aol.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
03 Dec 2002
|
In response to "ML" who seemingly wishes to remain anonymous:
Uhhmmm... Do I appear scared? Have I anywhere suggested anything about "genocide"? Nice try on both counts to alter the content and kill the messenger.
"Injustice breeds resistance, eh?" I tend to think children without a real and justifiable reason to become disturbed often attach themselves to the passionate ramblings of the nearest babbling psychopath, simply to placate their adolescent callings to render themselves imaginary super-heroes by challenging all norms. In such, they adhere to borrowed and adopted idealisms, rendering themselves nothing more than a general pain in the lower sphincter to the public at large, and they don't even know why.
-GP (can't wait to visit the IMC again!) ;) |
|
Your Fear Of The Facts... |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Dec 2002
|
Why else would you ignore the important issues raised by opponents of the "Chief"? Why else would you insist that this subject is over, case closed, asking people to just move along and not pay any attention?
Your dismissal of those who oppose the "Chief" as "children" inicates that the "Great-White-Father" spirit that concentrated Native Americans on reservations to "protect" them is very much alive in you. How can you even insist that your paternalistic point of view represents anything approaching "respect"?
For the record, I'm well into middle age, just like many others who oppose the "Chief" and there are many that are considerably older than I. But it is "Great-White-Father" you who thinks that _we_ believe in "imaginary superheroes" when it is _you_ who clings to a fictitious portrayal of an Illini concocted from Boy Scout mythology by a bunch of college-aged white "children" like some sick fetish.
Why do I bring up genocide? Because you so lightly dismiss the fact of genocide against native peoples by claiming that people should just "get over it." Hitler probably felt very much the same way about his crimes, but that did not change the facts, which I'm sure he was as equally afraid to confront as you are about the past. The continued misappropriation of the image of the "Chief" is just another, slightly less bloody continuation of genocidal behavior.
And am I just finding "insult where none was offered"? No, I would think that most adults would view the portrayal of their deeply held and factually consistent beliefs as childish, as you have here, as very much intentional. Whatever you say about your belief in the "respected spirit" of the "Chief" really just amounts to a "borrowed and adopted idealism" or, perhaps more accurately, a stolen idealism that is a bad joke at the expense of native peoples. You think you stole it fair and square and it's just "history"? If it was just history, it wouldn't be in your face, now would it? |
|
Fair Comeback, Mer'...... |
by GP
MdWestDude (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Dec 2002
|
Merridith,
I'm pleased you responded as you did. At this point we should have the body slams out of the way, and perhaps we can get to the heart of the matter, if you care to.
Firstly, I remain unaware of what I'm supposed to "fear" so I remain unafraid. I am not affiliated with the U of I in any way. My political leanings may be in the direction you subtly suggested (though not always), yet the topic of removing Chief Illiniwek has always put a burr under my saddle.
I feel we should address the topic of team names and subsequent mascots, how and why they are named as they are, and what the intent of said titles might be.
Teams really don't require titles other than that of the institution they represent. Yet, people seemingly decided long ago to add a bit of spice to the names with a bit of creative titling. In this process, it would certainly appear that the concept of pitting one team against another coincided to these people with the nature of going to war, enterring into battle,...battles between human factions, and sometimes a concept of man against animal. Hence, many names were created to reflect those notions: The Bombers, The Wildcats, The Trojans, The Cowboys, The Indians, The Braves, The Conquerers, The Bears, The Warriors, etc...etc.. not to mention the Victims and the Politically-Incorrect Pigs. Ooops... I guess the latter two were never team names. (Rah, rah, rah!)
So, why in the world were so many names chosen to reflect native Americans?
Because history will hold that they were considered fierce and respected opponents.
I suppose this is much like Democrats and Republicans today, but if we put our modern day versions on an actual battlefield, one side would be running a spreadsheet while the other complained about hurt feelings. Point: Politics do not matter here, ultimately.
Yet, the psychology of it all goes further than the simple fact native Americans were viewed as fierce and respected opponents. I can tell you, and promise you, that most caucasoid-Americans (I just love titles which separate us as people, don't you?) carry an admiration for the native Americans for several reasons. Whether it's the fault of Hollywood, or blatantly piss-poor upbringing, people view the "Indians" as the better warriors, who lost to the settlers of this country simply because of the advanced technology of the "white man". And most of us, in visualizing things from that period, harbor a resentment of what technology has done to this once grand and pristine land... hence we hold the native American as a more noble entity. Those are real feelings, negated by the fact we are both hacking on computers at this moment. Yet, the point remains: A more noble and fierce warrior.
As I eluded to before, it's a fact that world history will continuously show that the more advanced society won during times of war. It's a fact none of us can change, yet many of us here actually harbor a curious desire that the native Americans would have actually won, and chased the settlers back to other continents. I suppose such is the ultimate in "rooting for the hometeam", at face value. The truth is that most of us "caucasoids" carry a much larger admiration and respect for the native Americans than we do our own ancestors. In fact, we are not proud at all, thus we view the native American in a larger light of honor.
So what we see when viewing Chief Illiniwek is a culmination of all those factors which encourages the feelings of fighting spirit and honor. Such is the character we perceive and transpose ourselves into. It is all performed in a brief moment, during an event which is primarily a function of entertainment. Such is not presented as political commentary, nor designed with any insult what-so-ever, in fact Chief Iliniwek represents an icon we admire.
Still, you find insult. Where you fail is in adequately expressing the nature and basis of the insult to the degree the general populus can understand it.
I can assure you that the public does not have "genocide" on their minds when viewing the Chief, nor do I believe that genocide was ever a goal or desire of the migrating settlers of this country so long ago. In fact, they fled here in masses to avoid such. I don't believe anyone cares about the accuracy of the head-dress, nor of the dance, yet I've heard such mentioned in opposition to the Chief.
And when you enter the politicized aspect of Indian reservations into the argument, such goes way beyond the actual topic at hand. In truth you are free to live where you please, free to take part in most anything you desire, and free to avoid anything which upsets you... and even free to protest the latter.
Your protest must be understood before it can succeed. It might be interesting to know your larger goal as well, if there is one.
Yet the questions remains:
Why is Chief Illiniwek insulting to you? Even further, why are there others of native American ancestry who find no insult?
-GP |
|
Re: Anti-Chief Protestors Disrupt U Of I Board Of Trustees Meeting |
by Michael Feltes
mfeltes (nospam) shimer.edu (verified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Dec 2002
|
Just as a purely factual note, GP, you're not talking with Meredith Kruse, unless, for some reason beyond understanding, she's taken another person's nickname.
"I know Meredith Kruse, sir, and ML is no Meredith Kruse." |
|
Now, Putting On My Political Commentary Hat... |
by Michael Feltes
mfeltes (nospam) shimer.edu (verified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Dec 2002
Modified: 06:54:18 PM |
It may be true that the intention behind Chief Illiniwek was to evoke the spirit of the noble warrior to inspire an athletic team to victory. However, I sincerely doubt that most of the student-athletes at the U of I know or care much about the history of Native Americans, just as I sincerely doubt that most of the student-athletes at USC have read or even heard of "The Iliad" (which is truly a shame and speaks to the state of post-secondary education in America, but that's another rant altogether).
Here's a spin on the controversy that I've found helpful in thinking about it. My understanding is that Chief Illiniwek's dance is based on sacred ritual. If that's so, can you see how some Native Americans who hold to their ancestral beliefs would be offended by the use of their cultural heritage as entertainment? I've always kept the image of a Catholic priest, host in one hand and chalice in the other, cassock twirling and flying about while he dances around the altar in a Bubsy Berkeley routine as a counterbalance to that of the Chief.
This might be a straw man, but I don't think so. The correspondence seems pretty clear to me, and given that, retiring the Chief seems like a pretty clear decision. As you noted, there are plenty of other good mascots to be had. |
|
Re: Anti-Chief Protestors Disrupt U Of I Board Of Trustees Meeting |
by GP
MdWestDude (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
23 Dec 2002
Modified: 06:00:01 PM |
Thanks for clearing up the identity issues, sorry about that. ;)
I also appreciate the commentary about the Chief's dance being based upon a sacred ritual. Such could point out a potential source of insult, and perhaps be understandable, if I knew which ritual it was. Would the comment suggest that if the dance were changed, the insult would be removed?
I would tend to think that anytime an actual Chief danced, it was a ritualistic dance, performed for a reason. Often it might have been a war dance, or a victory dance.
I'm not so sure I follow the Catholic Priest comparison, however,...but I could compare it to a native American dressing up like an American President or Congressman and properly behaving like a incompetent sot with entirely too much power. Such would be an effective display of historical American governmental leadership, to which I would applaud and show my appreciation.
I also agree that a lot of students possibly don't know much about the history of the Illinois tribe. I certainly can't write a book on the topic myself, but if historical accounts are accurate, the Illinois family of tribes was largely reduced and severed within the course of several battles and wars against other native American tribes.
-GP
|
|
